I wasn't aware of what Dawkins has said about Craig, the respect i have for him has gone. Its now clear that behind his mask of authority and self-righteousness, he is just a angry, pompous, Deceitful, coward. What a pathetic "man".
Dawkins is utterly pathetic. Not only does he refuse to debate a leading Christian apologist, he also, much to the delight of his Dawkinsnet bum boys, retreats to his blog to write personal attacks on Craig, In a sense its bullying. Craig just seems like a completely decent, honest hardworking individual. Dawkins wrote a book for the public, telling them how stupid their religion is, surely he can back this up, when he's got a real opponent, and not just a strawman.
"Not only does he refuse to debate a leading Christian apologist, he also, much to the delight of his Dawkinsnet bum boys, retreats to his blog to write personal attacks on Craig, In a sense its bullying"
This is very characteristic defensive/coping behaviour. One thing people should understand when they're offended by ad hominem remarks, is that this is a sign of weakness and that the perpretators are on the defensive.
People should never reciprocate ad hominems if possible.
Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time with a religious propagandist as WLC is certainly no philospher and his arguments have all been thoroughly refuted.
So if you and your non thinking ilk want to believe in skydaddy magic and talking snakes, the ark, and other bullshit, go ahead and suck WLC cock
@atheistrocker100 because it's fucking boring talking to numpties that believe in talking snakes. There is a world out there to be enjoyed and talking to drooling knuckle draggers and listening to their pathetic arguments that 10 year olds can refute IS BORING.
You don't look like you're at all enjoying life, and you use language which doesn't even make you look 10 years old, thus even LESS capable of refuting Craig's arguments (which you don't even attempt, despite boasting about how easy it is).
So, here's a second chance: post your oh-so-easy refutations of Craig's arguments or you'll be blocked (I have grounds for that with your language already, so think carefully).
@Rockster969 Wow, yet another charming atheist. "WLC is certainly no philospher" lol you actually have no idea what your talking about, please don't comment me.
Jesus' Mum was a virgin, he claimed to be God and died to save us all. Yup, this must be right because it's just too insane not to be. Fantastic. The endless translations, re-translations, lost originals, people describing what they never saw. Believe and you can live forever! It gets even better. God needed a loophole to get round his own standards so that He could forgive his own creation for not achieving them. Yes, human sacrifice.
@mattetho *yes I do have a PhD and I do know what I am talking about*
You obviously are an American and most Americans know very little about any other country but their own...lol...A person who thinks the violence of the Reformation period was based on politics, obviously has obtained a degree that is not even worth the ink that printed it.
I've yet to read any counter arguments on the issue's I've raised. All I get it is 'I'm outta my deapth', 'I was never a real christian'...etc etc etc
@mattetho *You tell me what a Christian is and once you do that we can have this discussion*
I have been baptized in all 3 branches of Christainity, which version would you like? Roman Catholic? Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? All have very different views on what the term 'christian' entails.
How can the term 'Christian' be defined when each branch accuses the others of being 'heretics' 'schismatisc' or 'anti-christs?
"I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist." -- Martin Luther.
So then, how can protestants be united with catholics under the umbrella of 'Christian Unity', when the founder of protestantism considers the leader of the catholics to be the ani-christ?!!!
"Keep away from all heretics and schismatics, neither pray with them nor attend their religious meetings and services."
> The 4th Commandment of the Eastern Orthodox Church as stated in The Prayer Book for Eastern Orthodox Christians, compiled by the Rev. Peter H. Horton-Billard and the Rev. Vasile Hategan<
Christian unity? ...lol. That's a strange sense of being united. You can't even pray with those that disagree with your doctrine!
@mattetho * no my friend they were not, people were killed then and today over political differences not religious*
And you have a PHD? wow. The 16th century was rife with religous violence. There was always animosity between Germany & Rome, but there is no escaping the well known historical facts that any dissent from church dogma resulted in torture & death. Catholic killed protestant, protestants killed both.. I've heard you can't reason with Christians using facts. I now know it's true.
@mattetho *Come on, grow up. As I said in my previous post, the differences are of secondary importance, ALL creeds believe in the identical core beliefs of Christedom. You know that, we all know that.*
People were killed over these 'secondary differences' during the protestant reformation! It was anything but 'secondary'. Those 'secondary' differences got people condemned as heretics! Today, Christians have forgiven each other for that & say those issues don't count! ..unity, right.lol!.
@mattetho *What demonisations differ on is of secondary importance*
The Orthodox says that Western Christians are flip-sides of the same coin: R.C. trust the Pope for their spiritual guidance, the protestant trusts only in themselves. And yet you & others can claim 'Christian Unity'????
Ths converstation is over. You've not answered any of the most simplest of questions, and there are many dozen's of others I'm sure will likely follow in the same vein. Enjoy your fables. I'm outta here.
@mattetho *What demonisations differ on is of secondary importance*
According to who? Catholics & protesants have a VAST difference of opinion when it comes to salvation. {and many other doctrines} In fact, many protestants consider the Roman Catholic Church to be of the anti-christ! That's a far cry from 'secondary'. You sir, with all of you so-called wisdom, have not answered even my most basic of objections!
Jesus prayed for 'unity', as he & the Father were one. Did they disagree?
@mattetho *Have you read the works of st Augustine*
Some, not extensively, and mostly what the Orthodox church taught. But even still, neither Augustine, you, or any other Christian to date, has yet to explain the genealogy of Jesus Christ that the bible CLEARLY traces back to Adam.
If the book of Genesis does not need to be taken literally, then neither does the Jesus story. The 2 are intrinsically tied together, no getting around it.
The bible is very clear about the origins of man. There is no way to reconcile evolution with Genesis. Adam was the first human ever made by god. He was a real man-- a homo sapien man. No doubt about this biblical fact. We know this because both Genealogies of Jesus Christ trace his lineage back to Adam! If genesis is nothing but an 'allegorical' story, then so is the Jesus story because it's tied to Adam! And so the bible = Aseop's fables!
@mattetho *You were never a Christian anyway, maybe a cultural Christian but not a Christian with conviction*
You don't know anything about me, yet can make that statement! Lmao...
*.That statement proves EXACTLY what is wrong with protestant Christianity" No it proves what Biblical Christianity says is true*
It does? 30,000 different demonaitons and you think that Jesus prayer for unity has been answered? I'll bet you only read the bible when in church sunday mornings...lol
@mattetho *Geneis is phenomenological not science*
Are you really that ignorant of what Christians have believed for centuries {& what's in your own bible?} ..until Darwin came along that is. No, your not ignorant, just plain stupid. Genesis is quite clear about how man got put on planet earth. In fact, the genealogy of Jesus Christ goes right back to Adam. Therefore Adam was the first man created by God and was a homo sapien! Come on now, think about it.... that's NOT what happened,
@mattetho *That was an emotional experience, you never came to Christ*
That statement proves EXACTLY what is wrong with protestant Christianity! One denomination completely disavows another---and all based on private interpretation of scripture! So then, god tells John Macarthur that speaking in tongues died with the last apostle, then tells Jimmy Swaggart the complete opposite???
It's obvious nobody is hearing from God, but only spewing the nonsense that is created within their own mind.
@LordSauceness A man who is looking for evidence in order to believe in God will never find it. No amount of evidence will convince a man, who's heart has not been touched by the Spirit of God, of God's existence. Not even a miracle before his eyes would convince him (Luke 16:19–31) One comes into a relationship with God through a saving relationship experience that makes his existence 100% evident apart from the physical evidence. While the physical evidence is good, it will never be enough.
@99percentatheist *One comes into a relationship with God through a saving relationship experience that makes his existence 100% evident apart from the physical evidence. While the physical evidence is good, it will never be enough *
You got it backwards there friend. What would it take for you NOT to believe in God? Nothing would ever change your mind. As far as that 'feeling- god- thingy', the same exact experience happens to people when they put on the god helmet. Go research it.
@LordSauceness Now that I have experienced God's saving grace there is nothing that would make me not believe in him because my faith was not based on evidence but on his Spirit opening my eyes. This is the way most Christians have come to believe in God. With this being said, I think that there is good evidence that makes God's existence more plausible than not, but a man who's heart has not been touched by God will never accept it, no matter how good this evidence is.
@99percentatheist * Now that I have experienced God's saving grace there is nothing that would make me not believe in him because my faith was not based on evidence but on his Spirit opening my eyes.*
Well 99.> that's why there's no conversing with theists.(Muslims have the exact same experience!) So, if an alien race found us on planet Earth & decided to mingle with us AND had scientific evidence of how our universe came to be, you still would believe? Based on a flimsy experience?- wow....
@LordSauceness Remember that I also said that there is good evidence that makes God's existence more plausible than not. So the Christian is very rational in trusting his experience, especially in the absence of a defeater. And we do have scientific evidence how the universe came to be: It was caused to exist about 14 billion years ago.
@99percentatheist *So the Christian is very rational in trusting his experience,*
You then must call other religious experiences nothing else but demonic influence. Afterall, YOUR god, YOUR holy book, YOUR religion, is the right one! All others are 'false'.
When you consider that homo sapiens were around for many tens of thousands of years before one word of the bible was ever written, don'tcha think that is a fairly arrogant statement to make?
@LordSauceness What's all this about demons? I said that a Christian is rational in trusting his experience "based on the evidence." Please stop attacking strawmen.
And granting that homo sapiens were around for thousands of years before the Bible was written, how does it logically follow that the above statement is arrogant? If homo sapiens continue to live for a million more years then that would mean that the Bible was written at the beginning of the human species.
@99percentatheist *What's all this about demons? I said that a Christian is rational in trusting his experience "based on*
Behind closed doors, Christians will tell themselves that any other religious experience but theirs is from the devil. If If've heard this once, I've heard it a hundred times. They just won't admit it when arguing with atheists.
About 11 years ago, I was in a Southern Baptist type church. I actually had a guy tell me this: "...I don't care what anyone says brother, epilepsy is from the devil. It's in the bible!"
That's what I'm talking about.... plain ingorance. I know someone with this conditon, and interestingly, the 'devil' disappeared when given the correct medication. Now if only we can find the right medicine for all the other Christians!
Lol..that's a device to distract from the issues at hand. You've yet to justify your religious experiences to me in the light of other religious experiences, such as a Buddhist monk reaching the state of Nirvana. I supplied you with a very plasuible christian explanation, i.e. 'other religious experiences are demonic influences'. Instead of addressing that issue, you've sidestepped it altogether with a false red herring attack.
@LordSauceness Remember that I said,"...that there is good evidence that makes God's existence more plausible than not. So the Christian is very rational in trusting his experience, especially in the absence of a defeater." I also showed that your claim that my statement was "arrogant" was fallacious. Both of these went unaddressed and instead you said something about some guy claiming that epilepsy was demon caused. This is why you must be the King of Red Herrings.
@99percentatheist *." I also showed that your claim that my statement was "arrogant" was fallacious*
It's arrogant because your claim to 'know' God (the biblical god I'll assume) via experience is no different than any other religion's experiences. I demonstrated clearly how Christians invoke the use of demons to denigrate any type of religious experience outside of the Christian faith.
I'm waiting very patiently for YOUR explanation as to WHY your experience is real vs. a Hindu's exp.?
@mattetho * I can tell by your questions at 52 years of age that you have neither explored the answers to them nor had anyuone to help you*
I can assure you that I have spent many hours studying scriptures. I have talked with pastors, priests etc. My mindset is one that keeps pressing for answers. You know nothing about me, my life, my sincerity. Yet, you can make this judgemental claim. There are dozens of questions no christian can answer honestly.
Lmao! You assume all that from an extremely brief synopos of my life? Very typical of Christian thinking. Make quantum leaps in logic, then pass judgement. Did you think tha perhaps I spent over 10 years considering my 'speaking in tongues' experience? Nope. Did you consider that perhaps I may left that pentecostal church for a more traditional Baptist church? Nope. Did you know that I left protestantism for Othodoxy? No.
@mattetho *what would it take for you to be a man and think for yourself and come to Christ*
I came to Christ when I was 17. Spoke in tongues @ 19. Gave it all up at 52. You have to believe some very childish ideas to buy what Craig is selling. Mankind has been on this planet for 10's of thousand's of years...long before any bible was written. There's been several different speices of 'man'. Where does Neanderthal man fit in the Genesis story? He doesn't. -It just didn't happen that way!
@mattetho indeed, Dr. Craig will crush Dawkins , Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but when comes to philosophy and debating he should stay at his lab instead of making the ridiculous in public, i think is wise for him to do what he is doing on evading Dr. Craig.
@mattetho Let me tear it apart for you... I was a fundie Christian for several decades. I've read it through 7 tmes not counting the many topical studies. There is nothing in there any christian can demonstrate to be truthful. If you believe in talking animals, dead people coming up out the graves, the garden of Eden, there there is truly no hope in having a sane discussion. Most Christians don's know what's in their own bible, and it's easy to prove it wrong--dead wrong.
What atheists need to do, is to tear the bible apart. Debates about gods' existence with Christians is only an exercise in mental gymnastics. Christians believe the bible to be the unerrant 'Word of God'. Therefore, it MUST contain all truth, and if it can be found to be lacking in truth, we can safely chuck out it out along with the so-called god who wrote it.
Once the bible is totally decimated, there will be no need to argue the existence of god. Might as well argue about Zeus then....
@mattetho Strawman much? Name me some other philosophers who ARE NOT Christian apologists who have ever referenced or quoted him except to ridicule him then?
Also please show me just 2 examples of him actually answering a question.
Funny how a "renowned philosopher" is totally unknown by philosophers. I've only seen Christian apologists ever talk about the money and fame hungry avoider of questions.
Anyone ever see this man actually answer a question instead of saying "that isn't what I wanted you to ask me".
@CartesianTheist Haha! Yeah! I'm not trained in logic at all, I can handle propositional logic and a little (!) bit of predicate logic, but am a mere layman in logic overall! Being exposed to the logic of Maydole gave me headache! It's like rading an advanced paper on Quantum Mechanics. Do you know a good book to learn logic?
Kant (died 1804) is widely accepted to have finished off the Ontological argument by atheists and Christians alike. By stating that an object with the property of existence is no different to an object without the property of existence. Google it :P This is why atheists do not debate WLC, he has no argument. By debating with him you only encourage videos like this and by debating on the same stage you make people think he has an argument. I hope Dawkins does not turn up later this month
@benjami66 No, not really, it has been revived by Alvin Plantinga and now professor of philosophy and logic, Robert E. Maydole have analyzed every version logically and constructed a very sophisticated Ontological argument that is sound and avoids every attempt of parody.
@benjami66 Quentin Smith, an prominent Atheist Philosopher said this, "he rapidly evolving lines of thought are increasingly influential in the field of philosophy and the essays in this collection are "cutting edge" works, such as the very recent formulation of a new version of the ontological argument for God's existence by Robert Maydole." regarding The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, which contains the very technical essay by Robert E. Maydole.
@TheisticThinker my fault, should have protected myself by stating the "original" Ontological argument. That is the one Craig is using anyway rather than a revised one. We could play logical tricks all day, it does not mean it is proof of God. I dream of a perfect coffee cake to have with my cup of tea. It is bonkers to say that just because I have an idea of such a coffee cake, that cake exists on the grounds that a non-existent cake could not be perfect :P
WLC first statement: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Universe using his argument below began to exist therefore has a cause. How convenient that he states God has always existed, therefore this gets God around the first statement of needing a cause. His argument is laughable as he has set the conditions for it to win. I don't understand how you guys can't see this? It is the Ontological argument, in disguise!
This, sir, is a masterpiece among the videos of the upcoming tour. I must say that I applaud your work.
Now that I'm done giving you a fat head, I'll leave with 'Bravo' and 'I'm looking forward to watching the tour online.' I've got a little obstacle called the Atlantic Ocean keeping me from being there in person.
Greetings from the Great White North and God bless.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Why presume that these heavy cred Humanists have nothing to say? Most of the theism that I am aware of, in some form, values humility, respect of persons if not ideas, and charity.
"Who you are speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying." Thoreau, if memory serves.
"If we have not charity..." Who said that one?
Naked wolves are preferable to pseudo sheep IMO.
Dr. Craig isn't God if there is one. What if he 'loses'?
Great video! I especially liked the animation of the British Humanist logo running and hiding. Hopefully people will come to see what an intellectual house of cards new atheism really is!
Well made vid. Will be looking forward to watching WCL debate those “fearless atheists”. I wonder how he does. These vids don’t get all that many viewings though. Even though the story made the telegraph, it still seems like it’s only a handful of desperate Cardigans (and that ONE atheist - Came) who want to see Dawkins get humiliated.
Pathetic - almost like being in the school playground again.
You can't debate anyone who uses fairy tales as the basis of their logic , continually moves the goal posts, cherry picks what supernatural beliefs or scientific principles they wish to draw upon and lies to 'establish' fundemental points.
WLC = flowery & verbal but still not correct. Old saying - "Empty vessels..."
@Birdieupon *I'm sick to death of the same old tunes from atheists who want to slander Craig but who never actually bring examples and support for their claims*
Craig is really good at debating vague topics such as 'Does God exist'? etc. But the reality is, that Craig, is an atheist when it comes to Buddha, Allah, Krishna etc. He's ONLY interesed in the proving the God of the Bible. The bible is easily dismantled by science, full of ridiculous claims & stories that can never be verified.
Wow, what a trailer! Felt like it was am hour long, entertaining, brought many a smile to my face, and realy exposed the character of Dawkins and Crayling, 1 resorts to libelous ad hominem, the other lies, and both cower. Absolutely excellent video, really enjoyed it, whether Dawkins shows up on the 25th or remains in the bunker hurling concentrated slander at Craig, it will be our pleasure either way, because Craig almost definitely cannot lose! Cant wait, epic stuff, will share this around!
Craig is an intolerable man, so I’m not surprised that people refuse to debate him. His deceitful debate tactics, such as repeatedly trying to shift the burden of proof, are truly insufferable. All of Craig's boring debates consist of the same weightless arguments (where he attempts to DEFINE his god into existence) that he has been promoting for years, & they're just not convincing. Craig is a pseudo-intellectual and a supporter of intelligent design. He has no sober credibility, whatsoever
@QuantumGh0st Dawkins is an intolerable man, so I’m not surprised that people refuse to debate him. His deceitful debate tactics, such as repeatedly trying to shift the burden of proof, are truly insufferable. All of his's boring debates consist of the same weightless arguments (where he attempts to DEFINE his god into existence) that he has been promoting for years, & they're just not convincing. He is a pseudo-intellectual and a supporter of hate. He has no sober credibility, whatsoever
@Birdieupon how about the fact WLC states that the term infinity doesn't exist and that the number of past events must be finite therefore Universe not eternal and must have been created. 10 minutes later when everyone has forgotten he is then using lemaitre's big bang and his infinite singularity as evidence for God :P Oops contradiction! see debates by WLC for examples
If indeed you had a credible argumentative case to present against Craig, your comments would not sound so much like childish coping responses based upon ignorance, contortions, sophistry, selective perception, and a simplistic (likely morally-related) irrational hatred of key foundational precepts.
@JCrownwell I'm not required to present rebutting arguments. Craig's attempts are not satisfactory, & let’s not even go there regarding his comical attempts to validate his myths with science. Craig's version of the kalam argument is only convincing to the non-intellectual audiences that he plays to. Carl Sagan was exactly right when he stated that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and i'm afraid that Craig's material is simply unimpressive to any clear minded individual.
@JCrownwell Craig does not feel obliged to prove that Zeus DOESN'T exist or that unicorns DON'T exist, which is absolutely analogous to why I’m not obliged to prove that, Craig’s imagination, the Jewish war-god, Yahweh, doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's that simple. If there Craig had real evidence then the 95% of the NAS fellows, that are, unsuprisingly, non-theists, would be Christians.
Craig has given rational proof of the existence of God. If you are demanding empirical evidence for a foundational belief such as theism (as well as atheism and naturalism) then you may as well attempt to empirically prove the axioms of logic and mathematics.
The empirical process cannot apply to foundational beliefs because foundational beliefs formalise the very critical thinking processes which underlie empirical validation. To attempt to do so would thus result in tautology.
@JCrownwell "Craig has given rational proof of the existence of God"
No he hasn't, he has given poor proof for the logical existence of a definitional first cause, and his premises are extremely controversial.
"If you are demanding empirical evidence"
Not necessarily, but Craig’s arguments do lack the fertility of falsification, testability & predictive power. And, lol, logical axioms are necessary in order for understanding to function & progress; imaginary realms & Gods aren't.
@JCrownwell By using your working PC you've already acknowledged that mathematical axioms are necessary. By using words you've acknowledged that certain axioms are necessary because descriptive words are in essence self-evident. Without axioms you'd be unable to ask me to “prove it”. But maybe I am wrong. However, I’m not required to defend first-principles (which Craig, himself, accepts). I'm just suggesting that the idea of Yahweh (or theism in general) is not convincing.
"By using your working PC you've already acknowledged that mathematical axioms are necessary"
Sorry but your examples are not empirical proofs of the mathematical and logical axioms.
For example, the feedback an observer has in terms of the apparent "meaningful utility" of computers is also formalised by logic and mathematics, so this is a tautological argument.
"logical axioms are necessary in order for understanding to function & progress"
Every means of feedback by which we can validate logic, as an index of "function and progress" is formalised by logic itself, so your argument here is a tautology.
Again, provide empirical proof of the logical axioms if you think it to be so, otherwise kindly leave the epistemological commentary to those with the intellectual capacity to address the issues.
Among philosophically illiterate teenage atheist basement dwellers who look upon "mere technicalities" (ooh, such as formal logic) as irrelevant, I'm sure they are.
"Not necessarily, but Craig’s arguments do lack the fertility of falsification, testability..."
The demand for falsifiability/testability is, by definition, a challenge for empirical validation. You seem to be doing a good job of torpedoing your own credibility here. :)
I didn't demand empirical validation, I merely pointed out that these methodologies have proven their worth. It’s not my problem that available methodologies are unable to validate the idea of Craig's god; but quite the opposite. Craig’s god is indistinguishable from non-existence. It is, again, up to the asserters to construct convincing methods or proofs for this idea, but, as yet, you have all come short.
By calling for something to be falsifiable and testable, that is what you are essentially doing.
"I merely pointed out that these methodologies have proven their worth"
Empiricism undeniably is useful, but it's also important understand its limitations. Due to neurobiological limitations inherent within perception, it cannot apply to foundational beliefs. Thus, it cannot apply to beliefs or (absences of belief) in metaphysical causation.
@JCrownwell Craig would like his first premise to confirm that the universe must’ve been caused to exist, ex nihilo, by his God. But what Craig, apparently, fails to recognize that nothing's ever actually been observed to begin existing at all. Everything we observe coming into existence is merely a re-shuffle of pre-existing matter & energy. Therefore, Craig's first premise is unsound & he'll need to refute the following: "Anything that doesn't exist can't be caused to begin existing"
"Everything we observe coming into existence is merely a re-shuffle of pre-existing matter & energy."
This is, of course, a metaphysical assumption.
Would you care to provide empirical evidence for this? Alternatively, provide a rational explanation as to how a physical body pervasively subject to cause and effect, such as the physical universe, can also be simultaneously independent of cause and effect by being a primary cause unto its own existence?
@JCrownwell "This is, of course, a metaphysical assumption."
It's based on deduction which is exactly what Craig's first premise is, fallaciously, based on. Therefore, by expressing doubt towards my contention you are conceding that Craig’s work is inferior
"Alternatively, provide a rational explanation etc..."
I don't know, I’m not claiming to & I don't need to. And it is you who is now assuming that intuitive concepts like linear time & causality apply to the premival quantum universe
"I don't know, I’m not claiming to & I don't need to"
I'm asking for your deductive argument for an infinitely existing universe. My statement regarding determinism is the primary formal logical challenge such an argument faces, so I'm afraid you will also need to address this problem if you are to defend your assertion.
I made no allusion to linear time as far as I'm aware. The principle of universal determinism, a logical axiom, doesn't need to be defended, at least for now.
@JCrownwell "I'm asking for your deductive argument for an infinitely existing universe."
You're once again mistaken. I'm not claiming to know the absolute nature of reality or how long it has existed. You're request, again, assumes that time is applicable prior to where Einsteinian physics ceases to apply. Hawking tells us, in his latest book, that the nature of time would be unrecognizable and behave like another dimension of space prior to 10-43 seconds "before" the big bang.
"You're [sic] request, again, assumes that time is applicable prior to where Einsteinian physics ceases to apply."
Interesting straw man, though I appreciate how you could have come to this misunderstanding. An infinitely existing universe is actually one that is foundationally independent of time. My request therefore makes no allusion regarding the nature of time at any point within the existence of said universe.
@JCrownwell You seem to be committing a classic Craig trick. A non-theist needs only doubt the validity of theistic arguments to establish his position in the same way that a non-astrologer needs only to doubt astrology to establish her position. Nothing to do with causality, cosmology or philosophy gets Craig anywhere close to his Jewish war-god of Israel. You're scrutinizing arguments that I’m not making & are unable to support Craig & his weightless drivel. I see no reason to continue this.
@JCrownwell If there's one cognitive faculty that has failed us time & again throughout history it is human intuition. Nobody could've imagined that space-time dilation, quantum uncertainty or germ theory like they could the man made myths that once governed reality. Each century that has passed has seen Gods demoted to take more passive roles, & to inhabit more distant places, in the universe. Craig's best weapon is intuition & before the big bang is just the latest hiding place for his god.
"failed us time & again throughout history it is human intuition"
The logical axioms are neurobiologically intuitive.
If you wish to abandon formal logic, you may as well abandon the scientific methodology which pervasively presupposes logic. Moreover, if you wish to embrace quantum non-determinism at superficial face value (ignoring its ontological implications) you may as well as abandon the scientific method by way of abandonment of the principle of universal determinism.
@JCrownwell Again, I’m not abandoning anything or embracing any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. When I say "intuition" I'm merely referring to how people are predisposed to interpret reality in a certain way; that is all. And nature herself, largely, is just not intuitive.
You seem desperate to pin me to a bull’s-eye but I’m not even on the firing range. My only duty is to point out that Craig is missing his target by a long way.
"You seem desperate to pin me to a bull’s-eye but I’m not even on the firing range."
If walking goal posts could talk, they'd talk just like you. ;) There's a very good reason why I've made a record of this conversation for educational purposes. Hint: it's not your aptitude at debate.
"When I say "intuition" I'm merely referring to how people are predisposed to interpret reality in a certain way"
Sorry, but this definition of intuition still entails logic and the other neurobiological axioms.
Moreover, as far as I understand from his defence of KCA premise one, Craig's definition of intuition also refers to logical foundations as a basis by which to formulate rational arguments and interpret phenomenal observations.
@JCrownwell And if talking goal posts could sprint, they'd look like the history of religious apologists. My only position is that Craig's claims are unjustified, and I’m right.
"Hint: it's not your aptitude at debate."
Until Craig (or his equivalent) can provide anything of substance, doubt is reasonable, by default, & thus the debate remains tilted in my favour.
@QuantumGh0st It's clear you're a rank amateur of maybe average intelligence at best. Do you really think youre in any position to be commenting on Craig's debate skills. If a moment ago you believed that logic and mathematics axioms can be proven using evidence, someone of your capacity would get taken apart by Craig within minutes
@Calenfeyn41 "you're a rank amateur" - Smart enough to see through Craig's theatrical claptrap.
"in any position to be commenting on Craig's debate skills" – Yes, Craig is only impressive to those, already, convinced that his god exists. To sceptics, he is just a talented illusionist.
"If a moment ago you believed that logic and mathematics axioms can be proven" - I'm glad you said "if"
"would get taken apart by Craig" - Craig's needs to be focused on proving his Jewish-battle-God.
"Each century that has passed has seen Gods demoted"
The scientific revolution began long before naturalism was subsumed under theism as a doctrine of secondary causes, then as a primary foundational position.
It wasn't the uptake of naturalism that led to the increasing rate of progress in science, but numerous other developments (a formalised educational and communications infrastructure, an exponentially increasing population) contingent upon prior scientific advances.
@JCrownwell We could also talk about why the big bang does not resemble a beginning in the way Craig would like it to, why the actual event of a beginning is not so straight forward when you explore the universe prior to inflation, and a million other things. William Lane Craig is an awesome illusionist: He makes it seem like he is presenting solid facts & is no doubt impressive to the untrained ear. Unfortunately, people like myself & others much smarter can see straight through the smoke.
Was at Dawkins’s site and searched Craig. Tons of insults and name-calling plus pseudophilosophical analyses of why Dawkins can’t stoop so low as to debate a Craig who doesn’t understand reality. There’s nothing rational you can say that they’ll accept. They cheer each other on as to how great a mind Dawkins is. This site, a “clear-thinking oasis,” has become an isolated mud puddle of raving lunatics who can’t stand logic. Thanks to Dr. Craig they're showing their true anti-intellectualism
Very true. Dawkins' website is a pretentious and self-delusional fan club. It's a therapy centre for angry atheists masquerading as a seminar for the reasoning elite. The insults thrown at Dr Craig (including by Dawkins himself) completely outweigh any critique of his arguments. In fact, the page with videos of Craig's responses to the God Delusion barely have any comments at all compared to the ad hominem brigade on other threads.
@Birdieupon I can't thank you enough for this video. I can't wait to see the empty Dawkins chair and the atheist panel responding to Craig's arguments against those of a Dawkins who can't stand on his own anymore.
How do these "raving" Dawkins fans account for the fact that Dawkins HAS debated Craig? How do you?
There's a certain irony about these videos and comments here - whining about name-calling when the ONLY criticisms of Dawkins are of a personal nature - "he's arrogant" "He's a coward" "He's clueless" "He's got an agenda!"
It's especially ironic given that Craig himself routinely slanders Dawkins. And then his fans whine when such tactics are not well-received.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@EqualAndFree Ah, so it does expand for a reason. Not that it helps the case. Pressure is indicative of force and force needs a cuase. And beside that it also indicates that this singularity has boundries. It is not endless because it can expand so it had to have been a specific size to begin with or there is no sense in any kind of expansion or mention of pressure. So here we are back at square one, there had to be a point at which this expansion began.
@EqualAndFree Your explanation is still begging the question. In lamens terms "The singularity expands because that's just what it does." That's hardly an explanation. this expansion is an uncuased event; something that just "happened because it happened." I think they call that special pleading.
@EqualAndFree Gravity doesn't "do" anything. It is the name we gave the result of a specific cuase. An entity which has not been cuased cannot "do" anything if not compelled. If it exists on its own (and the first cuase would have to) then it cannot compell itself (i.e. will itself) to produce anything. That would be an uncuased event which is not possible. If this singularity is an uncuased entity and not an uncuased event then it cuased the first event. It canot have done this without will.
The closest you can get would be two self-existent things. This can roughly be called dualism and is probably the most logical position when looking only at the bare physical facts. An uncaused cause that is not rational can do nothing because it has no will. Even with the universe emerging from a singularity, something caused this singularity. Something caused it to produce what is now the universe. If it existed on it's own, it would be the only thing that existed.
@EqualAndFree This is understandable, but it's question begging. Narrowing the beginning to the universe ot smaller and smaller intervals of time does not solve the logical problem of infinite regression. The idea of a singularity works well theologically (the place where time touches eternity should not have a measurable beginning) but it cannot be self-existent. Self existent irrational thing cannot change because that change must be caused and an event cannot cause itself. cont...
If only Dr. Craig were defending the claim that dinosaurs walked with men, and if his argument in favor of God were "a burning in my breast", and if he wore his hair in a mullet and spoke with an Appalachian accent, then he would find no lack of debaters in England.
I understand why you're trying desperately to find an alternative to a first cause, but hypothetical numbers do not substitute for the reality of the Physical world. Sadly, Einstein's calculations concerning a singularity are known to be badly flawed, an infinity is nothing more than a purely theoretical concept -a la, perpetual motion machines - nice in theory, but that's where it ends.
Infinities are not a reasonable solution for the Physical world
I understand why you're trying desperately to find an alternative to a first cause, but hypothetical numbers do not substitute for the reality of the Physical world. Sadly, Einstein's calculations concerning a singularity are known to be badly flawed, an infinity is nothing more than a purely theoretical concept -a la, perpetual motion machines - nice in theory, but that's where it ends.
Infinities are not a reasonable solution for the Physical world
3. I've never fallen into one but I know that black holes (in theory at least) are formed, which means they were once something (more likely many things) other than a black hole. That means they are caused, which makes them a very bad example if you're trying to find an example of something finite with no beginning.
1. Your number series has a beginning so it does nothing for our present purpose. I'm saying it's not possible to have an endless number of PAST events. We don't know what the future holds.
2. Your example works mathematically, but so does infinity. However ACTUAL infinates are not possible so there is no reason to believe your example corresponds to anything in the real world even if it works mathe mathematically.
1. Your number series has a beginning so it does nothing for our present purpose. I'm saying it's not possible to have an endless number of PAST events. We don't know what the future holds.
2. Your example works mathematically, but so does infinity. However ACTUAL infinates are not possible so there is no reason to believe your example corresponds to anything in the real world even if it works mathe mathematically.
@EqualAndFree If there is no "before" the universe then that would mean the universe is eternal. If that is the case then you have an infinite number of events preceding the present because we already see that the universe is constantly changing. These changes had to have started somewhere. There had to have been a first cause and physical causes require a physical universe. How can the first cause have been physical if it caused physical cases. The idea is only possible in words, and barely.
"A classic one is arguing that the Universe can't just come from Nothing - then later claiming that God creates the Universe from Nothing."
Then you've clearly not cared to even understand the argument.
Craig talks about CAUSES! If something popped into being UNCAUSED out of nothing. If God is the cause then obviously the universe isn't appearing from nothing... because God is there to produce it!
@EqualAndFree "A classic one is arguing that the Universe can't just come from Nothing - then later claiming that God creates the Universe from Nothing. You can't have it both ways - and neither claim is empirically validatable." - Please tell me you are joking
I wasn't aware of what Dawkins has said about Craig, the respect i have for him has gone. Its now clear that behind his mask of authority and self-righteousness, he is just a angry, pompous, Deceitful, coward. What a pathetic "man".
sgtsolo1 2 months ago 2
GOD is the Universe- show my error or worship me
Peace
KNOWZ
SUPERKNOWZ 2 months ago
Thank you. Ha, figures it was Hans Zimmer.
The1OnJesusSide 3 months ago
(off topic question) what is the music when the BRITISH HUMANISTS are being listed off?
The1OnJesusSide 3 months ago
@The1OnJesusSide
"Roll Tide" from Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to the movie Crimson Tide.
Birdieupon 3 months ago
Dawkins is utterly pathetic. Not only does he refuse to debate a leading Christian apologist, he also, much to the delight of his Dawkinsnet bum boys, retreats to his blog to write personal attacks on Craig, In a sense its bullying. Craig just seems like a completely decent, honest hardworking individual. Dawkins wrote a book for the public, telling them how stupid their religion is, surely he can back this up, when he's got a real opponent, and not just a strawman.
atheistrocker100 3 months ago 13
@atheistrocker
"Not only does he refuse to debate a leading Christian apologist, he also, much to the delight of his Dawkinsnet bum boys, retreats to his blog to write personal attacks on Craig, In a sense its bullying"
This is very characteristic defensive/coping behaviour. One thing people should understand when they're offended by ad hominem remarks, is that this is a sign of weakness and that the perpretators are on the defensive.
People should never reciprocate ad hominems if possible.
JCrownwell 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@atheistrocker100 oh do please fuck off.
Dawkins doesn't want to waste his time with a religious propagandist as WLC is certainly no philospher and his arguments have all been thoroughly refuted.
So if you and your non thinking ilk want to believe in skydaddy magic and talking snakes, the ark, and other bullshit, go ahead and suck WLC cock
Rockster969 2 weeks ago
@Rockster969
"his arguments have all been thoroughly refuted."
Refute them then, or you'll be blocked. I don't put up with people who make such claims without support.
Birdieupon 2 weeks ago
@atheistrocker100 because it's fucking boring talking to numpties that believe in talking snakes. There is a world out there to be enjoyed and talking to drooling knuckle draggers and listening to their pathetic arguments that 10 year olds can refute IS BORING.
You are boring
Rockster969 2 weeks ago
@Rockster969
You don't look like you're at all enjoying life, and you use language which doesn't even make you look 10 years old, thus even LESS capable of refuting Craig's arguments (which you don't even attempt, despite boasting about how easy it is).
So, here's a second chance: post your oh-so-easy refutations of Craig's arguments or you'll be blocked (I have grounds for that with your language already, so think carefully).
Birdieupon 2 weeks ago
@Rockster969 Wow, yet another charming atheist. "WLC is certainly no philospher" lol you actually have no idea what your talking about, please don't comment me.
atheistrocker100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus' Mum was a virgin, he claimed to be God and died to save us all. Yup, this must be right because it's just too insane not to be. Fantastic. The endless translations, re-translations, lost originals, people describing what they never saw. Believe and you can live forever! It gets even better. God needed a loophole to get round his own standards so that He could forgive his own creation for not achieving them. Yes, human sacrifice.
ritchloui 4 months ago
Peter Millican was the one with the most dignity, and he't not even a New Atheist.
giorgiv18 4 months ago
@mattetho *= genetic fallacy = strawman= argumentum ad populum*
Lmao....you are indeed the master of avoiding answering the questions! Just throw mud & run.
*If you had read the NT you were realise that saved once, saved always*
I was never into John Calvin. Besides, I renounced all Western Christianity (as works from the devil) at my Orthodox baptism.
*Reformation period was based on politics*
Uh.....that was YOUR claim, not mine!
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *yes I do have a PhD and I do know what I am talking about*
You obviously are an American and most Americans know very little about any other country but their own...lol...A person who thinks the violence of the Reformation period was based on politics, obviously has obtained a degree that is not even worth the ink that printed it.
I've yet to read any counter arguments on the issue's I've raised. All I get it is 'I'm outta my deapth', 'I was never a real christian'...etc etc etc
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *You tell me what a Christian is and once you do that we can have this discussion*
I have been baptized in all 3 branches of Christainity, which version would you like? Roman Catholic? Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? All have very different views on what the term 'christian' entails.
How can the term 'Christian' be defined when each branch accuses the others of being 'heretics' 'schismatisc' or 'anti-christs?
LordSauceness 4 months ago
"I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist." -- Martin Luther.
So then, how can protestants be united with catholics under the umbrella of 'Christian Unity', when the founder of protestantism considers the leader of the catholics to be the ani-christ?!!!
LordSauceness 4 months ago
"Keep away from all heretics and schismatics, neither pray with them nor attend their religious meetings and services."
> The 4th Commandment of the Eastern Orthodox Church as stated in The Prayer Book for Eastern Orthodox Christians, compiled by the Rev. Peter H. Horton-Billard and the Rev. Vasile Hategan<
Christian unity? ...lol. That's a strange sense of being united. You can't even pray with those that disagree with your doctrine!
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho * no my friend they were not, people were killed then and today over political differences not religious*
And you have a PHD? wow. The 16th century was rife with religous violence. There was always animosity between Germany & Rome, but there is no escaping the well known historical facts that any dissent from church dogma resulted in torture & death. Catholic killed protestant, protestants killed both.. I've heard you can't reason with Christians using facts. I now know it's true.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *Come on, grow up. As I said in my previous post, the differences are of secondary importance, ALL creeds believe in the identical core beliefs of Christedom. You know that, we all know that.*
People were killed over these 'secondary differences' during the protestant reformation! It was anything but 'secondary'. Those 'secondary' differences got people condemned as heretics! Today, Christians have forgiven each other for that & say those issues don't count! ..unity, right.lol!.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *What demonisations differ on is of secondary importance*
The Orthodox says that Western Christians are flip-sides of the same coin: R.C. trust the Pope for their spiritual guidance, the protestant trusts only in themselves. And yet you & others can claim 'Christian Unity'????
Ths converstation is over. You've not answered any of the most simplest of questions, and there are many dozen's of others I'm sure will likely follow in the same vein. Enjoy your fables. I'm outta here.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *What demonisations differ on is of secondary importance*
According to who? Catholics & protesants have a VAST difference of opinion when it comes to salvation. {and many other doctrines} In fact, many protestants consider the Roman Catholic Church to be of the anti-christ! That's a far cry from 'secondary'. You sir, with all of you so-called wisdom, have not answered even my most basic of objections!
Jesus prayed for 'unity', as he & the Father were one. Did they disagree?
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *Have you read the works of st Augustine*
Some, not extensively, and mostly what the Orthodox church taught. But even still, neither Augustine, you, or any other Christian to date, has yet to explain the genealogy of Jesus Christ that the bible CLEARLY traces back to Adam.
If the book of Genesis does not need to be taken literally, then neither does the Jesus story. The 2 are intrinsically tied together, no getting around it.
Unless YOU have an answer? Specifically?
LordSauceness 4 months ago
The bible is very clear about the origins of man. There is no way to reconcile evolution with Genesis. Adam was the first human ever made by god. He was a real man-- a homo sapien man. No doubt about this biblical fact. We know this because both Genealogies of Jesus Christ trace his lineage back to Adam! If genesis is nothing but an 'allegorical' story, then so is the Jesus story because it's tied to Adam! And so the bible = Aseop's fables!
William 'Lame' Craig...lol, what a pompous idiot!
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *You were never a Christian anyway, maybe a cultural Christian but not a Christian with conviction*
You don't know anything about me, yet can make that statement! Lmao...
*.That statement proves EXACTLY what is wrong with protestant Christianity" No it proves what Biblical Christianity says is true*
It does? 30,000 different demonaitons and you think that Jesus prayer for unity has been answered? I'll bet you only read the bible when in church sunday mornings...lol
*...
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *Geneis is phenomenological not science*
Are you really that ignorant of what Christians have believed for centuries {& what's in your own bible?} ..until Darwin came along that is. No, your not ignorant, just plain stupid. Genesis is quite clear about how man got put on planet earth. In fact, the genealogy of Jesus Christ goes right back to Adam. Therefore Adam was the first man created by God and was a homo sapien! Come on now, think about it.... that's NOT what happened,
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *That was an emotional experience, you never came to Christ*
That statement proves EXACTLY what is wrong with protestant Christianity! One denomination completely disavows another---and all based on private interpretation of scripture! So then, god tells John Macarthur that speaking in tongues died with the last apostle, then tells Jimmy Swaggart the complete opposite???
It's obvious nobody is hearing from God, but only spewing the nonsense that is created within their own mind.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@LordSauceness A man who is looking for evidence in order to believe in God will never find it. No amount of evidence will convince a man, who's heart has not been touched by the Spirit of God, of God's existence. Not even a miracle before his eyes would convince him (Luke 16:19–31) One comes into a relationship with God through a saving relationship experience that makes his existence 100% evident apart from the physical evidence. While the physical evidence is good, it will never be enough.
99percentatheist 4 months ago
@99percentatheist *One comes into a relationship with God through a saving relationship experience that makes his existence 100% evident apart from the physical evidence. While the physical evidence is good, it will never be enough *
You got it backwards there friend. What would it take for you NOT to believe in God? Nothing would ever change your mind. As far as that 'feeling- god- thingy', the same exact experience happens to people when they put on the god helmet. Go research it.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@LordSauceness Now that I have experienced God's saving grace there is nothing that would make me not believe in him because my faith was not based on evidence but on his Spirit opening my eyes. This is the way most Christians have come to believe in God. With this being said, I think that there is good evidence that makes God's existence more plausible than not, but a man who's heart has not been touched by God will never accept it, no matter how good this evidence is.
99percentatheist 4 months ago
@99percentatheist * Now that I have experienced God's saving grace there is nothing that would make me not believe in him because my faith was not based on evidence but on his Spirit opening my eyes.*
Well 99.> that's why there's no conversing with theists.(Muslims have the exact same experience!) So, if an alien race found us on planet Earth & decided to mingle with us AND had scientific evidence of how our universe came to be, you still would believe? Based on a flimsy experience?- wow....
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@LordSauceness Remember that I also said that there is good evidence that makes God's existence more plausible than not. So the Christian is very rational in trusting his experience, especially in the absence of a defeater. And we do have scientific evidence how the universe came to be: It was caused to exist about 14 billion years ago.
99percentatheist 4 months ago
@99percentatheist *So the Christian is very rational in trusting his experience,*
You then must call other religious experiences nothing else but demonic influence. Afterall, YOUR god, YOUR holy book, YOUR religion, is the right one! All others are 'false'.
When you consider that homo sapiens were around for many tens of thousands of years before one word of the bible was ever written, don'tcha think that is a fairly arrogant statement to make?
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@LordSauceness What's all this about demons? I said that a Christian is rational in trusting his experience "based on the evidence." Please stop attacking strawmen.
And granting that homo sapiens were around for thousands of years before the Bible was written, how does it logically follow that the above statement is arrogant? If homo sapiens continue to live for a million more years then that would mean that the Bible was written at the beginning of the human species.
99percentatheist 4 months ago
@99percentatheist *What's all this about demons? I said that a Christian is rational in trusting his experience "based on*
Behind closed doors, Christians will tell themselves that any other religious experience but theirs is from the devil. If If've heard this once, I've heard it a hundred times. They just won't admit it when arguing with atheists.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@99percentatheist *What's all this about demons?*
About 11 years ago, I was in a Southern Baptist type church. I actually had a guy tell me this: "...I don't care what anyone says brother, epilepsy is from the devil. It's in the bible!"
That's what I'm talking about.... plain ingorance. I know someone with this conditon, and interestingly, the 'devil' disappeared when given the correct medication. Now if only we can find the right medicine for all the other Christians!
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@LordSauceness Who are you? The king of red herrings? Have a good life sir.
99percentatheist 4 months ago
@99percentatheist *Who are you? The king of red herrings?*
Lol..that's a device to distract from the issues at hand. You've yet to justify your religious experiences to me in the light of other religious experiences, such as a Buddhist monk reaching the state of Nirvana. I supplied you with a very plasuible christian explanation, i.e. 'other religious experiences are demonic influences'. Instead of addressing that issue, you've sidestepped it altogether with a false red herring attack.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@LordSauceness Remember that I said,"...that there is good evidence that makes God's existence more plausible than not. So the Christian is very rational in trusting his experience, especially in the absence of a defeater." I also showed that your claim that my statement was "arrogant" was fallacious. Both of these went unaddressed and instead you said something about some guy claiming that epilepsy was demon caused. This is why you must be the King of Red Herrings.
99percentatheist 4 months ago
@99percentatheist *." I also showed that your claim that my statement was "arrogant" was fallacious*
It's arrogant because your claim to 'know' God (the biblical god I'll assume) via experience is no different than any other religion's experiences. I demonstrated clearly how Christians invoke the use of demons to denigrate any type of religious experience outside of the Christian faith.
I'm waiting very patiently for YOUR explanation as to WHY your experience is real vs. a Hindu's exp.?
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho * I can tell by your questions at 52 years of age that you have neither explored the answers to them nor had anyuone to help you*
I can assure you that I have spent many hours studying scriptures. I have talked with pastors, priests etc. My mindset is one that keeps pressing for answers. You know nothing about me, my life, my sincerity. Yet, you can make this judgemental claim. There are dozens of questions no christian can answer honestly.
What about Neanderthal man? In Genesis?
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *You use smokescreens to escape*
Lmao! You assume all that from an extremely brief synopos of my life? Very typical of Christian thinking. Make quantum leaps in logic, then pass judgement. Did you think tha perhaps I spent over 10 years considering my 'speaking in tongues' experience? Nope. Did you consider that perhaps I may left that pentecostal church for a more traditional Baptist church? Nope. Did you know that I left protestantism for Othodoxy? No.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho *what would it take for you to be a man and think for yourself and come to Christ*
I came to Christ when I was 17. Spoke in tongues @ 19. Gave it all up at 52. You have to believe some very childish ideas to buy what Craig is selling. Mankind has been on this planet for 10's of thousand's of years...long before any bible was written. There's been several different speices of 'man'. Where does Neanderthal man fit in the Genesis story? He doesn't. -It just didn't happen that way!
LordSauceness 4 months ago
@mattetho indeed, Dr. Craig will crush Dawkins , Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but when comes to philosophy and debating he should stay at his lab instead of making the ridiculous in public, i think is wise for him to do what he is doing on evading Dr. Craig.
luima23 4 months ago
@mattetho Let me tear it apart for you... I was a fundie Christian for several decades. I've read it through 7 tmes not counting the many topical studies. There is nothing in there any christian can demonstrate to be truthful. If you believe in talking animals, dead people coming up out the graves, the garden of Eden, there there is truly no hope in having a sane discussion. Most Christians don's know what's in their own bible, and it's easy to prove it wrong--dead wrong.
LordSauceness 4 months ago
What atheists need to do, is to tear the bible apart. Debates about gods' existence with Christians is only an exercise in mental gymnastics. Christians believe the bible to be the unerrant 'Word of God'. Therefore, it MUST contain all truth, and if it can be found to be lacking in truth, we can safely chuck out it out along with the so-called god who wrote it.
Once the bible is totally decimated, there will be no need to argue the existence of god. Might as well argue about Zeus then....
LordSauceness 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Birdieupon
@mattetho Strawman much? Name me some other philosophers who ARE NOT Christian apologists who have ever referenced or quoted him except to ridicule him then?
Also please show me just 2 examples of him actually answering a question.
dshbjk 4 months ago
Funny how a "renowned philosopher" is totally unknown by philosophers. I've only seen Christian apologists ever talk about the money and fame hungry avoider of questions.
Anyone ever see this man actually answer a question instead of saying "that isn't what I wanted you to ask me".
dshbjk 4 months ago
Toynbee surely only accept discuss cooking and being a housewife. LOL.
StephenDeMille 4 months ago 5
Dawkins is PhD in ad hominem attacks.LOL.
StephenDeMille 4 months ago 2
@CartesianTheist Thanks! Will look into the book!
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
@CartesianTheist Haha! Yeah! I'm not trained in logic at all, I can handle propositional logic and a little (!) bit of predicate logic, but am a mere layman in logic overall! Being exposed to the logic of Maydole gave me headache! It's like rading an advanced paper on Quantum Mechanics. Do you know a good book to learn logic?
Thanks
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
Kant (died 1804) is widely accepted to have finished off the Ontological argument by atheists and Christians alike. By stating that an object with the property of existence is no different to an object without the property of existence. Google it :P This is why atheists do not debate WLC, he has no argument. By debating with him you only encourage videos like this and by debating on the same stage you make people think he has an argument. I hope Dawkins does not turn up later this month
benjami66 4 months ago
@benjami66 No, not really, it has been revived by Alvin Plantinga and now professor of philosophy and logic, Robert E. Maydole have analyzed every version logically and constructed a very sophisticated Ontological argument that is sound and avoids every attempt of parody.
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
@benjami66 Quentin Smith, an prominent Atheist Philosopher said this, "he rapidly evolving lines of thought are increasingly influential in the field of philosophy and the essays in this collection are "cutting edge" works, such as the very recent formulation of a new version of the ontological argument for God's existence by Robert Maydole." regarding The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, which contains the very technical essay by Robert E. Maydole.
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
@TheisticThinker my fault, should have protected myself by stating the "original" Ontological argument. That is the one Craig is using anyway rather than a revised one. We could play logical tricks all day, it does not mean it is proof of God. I dream of a perfect coffee cake to have with my cup of tea. It is bonkers to say that just because I have an idea of such a coffee cake, that cake exists on the grounds that a non-existent cake could not be perfect :P
benjami66 4 months ago
WLC first statement: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Universe using his argument below began to exist therefore has a cause. How convenient that he states God has always existed, therefore this gets God around the first statement of needing a cause. His argument is laughable as he has set the conditions for it to win. I don't understand how you guys can't see this? It is the Ontological argument, in disguise!
benjami66 4 months ago
This, sir, is a masterpiece among the videos of the upcoming tour. I must say that I applaud your work.
Now that I'm done giving you a fat head, I'll leave with 'Bravo' and 'I'm looking forward to watching the tour online.' I've got a little obstacle called the Atlantic Ocean keeping me from being there in person.
Greetings from the Great White North and God bless.
AMWOODco 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
You need a lot of faith to believe Dawkins is not afraid.
guilhermefreire48 4 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de Birdieupon
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
Why presume that these heavy cred Humanists have nothing to say? Most of the theism that I am aware of, in some form, values humility, respect of persons if not ideas, and charity.
"Who you are speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying." Thoreau, if memory serves.
"If we have not charity..." Who said that one?
Naked wolves are preferable to pseudo sheep IMO.
Dr. Craig isn't God if there is one. What if he 'loses'?
Faith, not sight, or sight, not faith?
Pride goeth?
m1chae15 4 months ago
Comment removed
m1chae15 4 months ago
Comment removed
m1chae15 4 months ago
Great video! I especially liked the animation of the British Humanist logo running and hiding. Hopefully people will come to see what an intellectual house of cards new atheism really is!
stallion4life 4 months ago
Well made vid. Will be looking forward to watching WCL debate those “fearless atheists”. I wonder how he does. These vids don’t get all that many viewings though. Even though the story made the telegraph, it still seems like it’s only a handful of desperate Cardigans (and that ONE atheist - Came) who want to see Dawkins get humiliated.
japonizieify 4 months ago
@japonizieify "Cardigans", joke fail! i meant to say "Craigians"*
japonizieify 4 months ago
Pathetic - almost like being in the school playground again.
You can't debate anyone who uses fairy tales as the basis of their logic , continually moves the goal posts, cherry picks what supernatural beliefs or scientific principles they wish to draw upon and lies to 'establish' fundemental points.
WLC = flowery & verbal but still not correct. Old saying - "Empty vessels..."
mdppearce 5 months ago
Your next comment will include citations and evidence explaining precisely WHERE and HOW Craig has done all those things you've just accused him of.
If you don't provide it, you will be blocked.
I'm sick to death of the same old tunes from atheists who want to slander Craig but who never actually bring examples and support for their claims.
Choice is yours: bring evidence or speak no more.
Birdieupon 5 months ago 13
@Birdieupon this was put together beautifully lol. this deserves to be shown in theatres or on the news : P
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Birdieupon *I'm sick to death of the same old tunes from atheists who want to slander Craig but who never actually bring examples and support for their claims*
Craig is really good at debating vague topics such as 'Does God exist'? etc. But the reality is, that Craig, is an atheist when it comes to Buddha, Allah, Krishna etc. He's ONLY interesed in the proving the God of the Bible. The bible is easily dismantled by science, full of ridiculous claims & stories that can never be verified.
LordSauceness 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Birdieupon
@mdppearce Hitchins went up a great deal in my estimation, when he described Craig as a formidable opponent and academically rigorous.
The1hope4all 4 months ago 2
Wow, what a trailer! Felt like it was am hour long, entertaining, brought many a smile to my face, and realy exposed the character of Dawkins and Crayling, 1 resorts to libelous ad hominem, the other lies, and both cower. Absolutely excellent video, really enjoyed it, whether Dawkins shows up on the 25th or remains in the bunker hurling concentrated slander at Craig, it will be our pleasure either way, because Craig almost definitely cannot lose! Cant wait, epic stuff, will share this around!
theemurf 5 months ago 5
@theemurf
Fantastic! Thank you for those very kind comments! And yes please do spread this!
While you're at it, it's worth seeing this can be spread about too:
aatheism DOT blogspot DOT com
(replace the dots and spaces, of course, youtube not liking external links! Feel free to click then save/copy the image too)!
Birdieupon 5 months ago 2
Craig is an intolerable man, so I’m not surprised that people refuse to debate him. His deceitful debate tactics, such as repeatedly trying to shift the burden of proof, are truly insufferable. All of Craig's boring debates consist of the same weightless arguments (where he attempts to DEFINE his god into existence) that he has been promoting for years, & they're just not convincing. Craig is a pseudo-intellectual and a supporter of intelligent design. He has no sober credibility, whatsoever
QuantumGh0st 5 months ago
@QuantumGh0st Dawkins is an intolerable man, so I’m not surprised that people refuse to debate him. His deceitful debate tactics, such as repeatedly trying to shift the burden of proof, are truly insufferable. All of his's boring debates consist of the same weightless arguments (where he attempts to DEFINE his god into existence) that he has been promoting for years, & they're just not convincing. He is a pseudo-intellectual and a supporter of hate. He has no sober credibility, whatsoever
pretoshohmoofc 5 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
Your next post will contains examples, citations and evidence for everything you've just accused Craig of doing, or you will be blocked.
Birdieupon 5 months ago 5
@Birdieupon how about the fact WLC states that the term infinity doesn't exist and that the number of past events must be finite therefore Universe not eternal and must have been created. 10 minutes later when everyone has forgotten he is then using lemaitre's big bang and his infinite singularity as evidence for God :P Oops contradiction! see debates by WLC for examples
benjami66 4 months ago
@Birdieupon You tube atheist are a very strong proof of Alvin Plantiga's theory on atheist's cognitive functions.
KBrimstone 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
If indeed you had a credible argumentative case to present against Craig, your comments would not sound so much like childish coping responses based upon ignorance, contortions, sophistry, selective perception, and a simplistic (likely morally-related) irrational hatred of key foundational precepts.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell I'm not required to present rebutting arguments. Craig's attempts are not satisfactory, & let’s not even go there regarding his comical attempts to validate his myths with science. Craig's version of the kalam argument is only convincing to the non-intellectual audiences that he plays to. Carl Sagan was exactly right when he stated that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and i'm afraid that Craig's material is simply unimpressive to any clear minded individual.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"I'm not required to present rebutting arguments"
In other words, you can't. Goodbye. :)
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell Craig does not feel obliged to prove that Zeus DOESN'T exist or that unicorns DON'T exist, which is absolutely analogous to why I’m not obliged to prove that, Craig’s imagination, the Jewish war-god, Yahweh, doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's that simple. If there Craig had real evidence then the 95% of the NAS fellows, that are, unsuprisingly, non-theists, would be Christians.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
Craig has given rational proof of the existence of God. If you are demanding empirical evidence for a foundational belief such as theism (as well as atheism and naturalism) then you may as well attempt to empirically prove the axioms of logic and mathematics.
The empirical process cannot apply to foundational beliefs because foundational beliefs formalise the very critical thinking processes which underlie empirical validation. To attempt to do so would thus result in tautology.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell "Craig has given rational proof of the existence of God"
No he hasn't, he has given poor proof for the logical existence of a definitional first cause, and his premises are extremely controversial.
"If you are demanding empirical evidence"
Not necessarily, but Craig’s arguments do lack the fertility of falsification, testability & predictive power. And, lol, logical axioms are necessary in order for understanding to function & progress; imaginary realms & Gods aren't.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell By using your working PC you've already acknowledged that mathematical axioms are necessary. By using words you've acknowledged that certain axioms are necessary because descriptive words are in essence self-evident. Without axioms you'd be unable to ask me to “prove it”. But maybe I am wrong. However, I’m not required to defend first-principles (which Craig, himself, accepts). I'm just suggesting that the idea of Yahweh (or theism in general) is not convincing.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumGh0st
"By using your working PC you've already acknowledged that mathematical axioms are necessary"
Sorry but your examples are not empirical proofs of the mathematical and logical axioms.
For example, the feedback an observer has in terms of the apparent "meaningful utility" of computers is also formalised by logic and mathematics, so this is a tautological argument.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"logical axioms are necessary in order for understanding to function & progress"
Every means of feedback by which we can validate logic, as an index of "function and progress" is formalised by logic itself, so your argument here is a tautology.
Again, provide empirical proof of the logical axioms if you think it to be so, otherwise kindly leave the epistemological commentary to those with the intellectual capacity to address the issues.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"and his premises are extremely controversial"
Among philosophically illiterate teenage atheist basement dwellers who look upon "mere technicalities" (ooh, such as formal logic) as irrelevant, I'm sure they are.
"Not necessarily, but Craig’s arguments do lack the fertility of falsification, testability..."
The demand for falsifiability/testability is, by definition, a challenge for empirical validation. You seem to be doing a good job of torpedoing your own credibility here. :)
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell
I didn't demand empirical validation, I merely pointed out that these methodologies have proven their worth. It’s not my problem that available methodologies are unable to validate the idea of Craig's god; but quite the opposite. Craig’s god is indistinguishable from non-existence. It is, again, up to the asserters to construct convincing methods or proofs for this idea, but, as yet, you have all come short.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"I didn't demand empirical validation"
By calling for something to be falsifiable and testable, that is what you are essentially doing.
"I merely pointed out that these methodologies have proven their worth"
Empiricism undeniably is useful, but it's also important understand its limitations. Due to neurobiological limitations inherent within perception, it cannot apply to foundational beliefs. Thus, it cannot apply to beliefs or (absences of belief) in metaphysical causation.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell Craig would like his first premise to confirm that the universe must’ve been caused to exist, ex nihilo, by his God. But what Craig, apparently, fails to recognize that nothing's ever actually been observed to begin existing at all. Everything we observe coming into existence is merely a re-shuffle of pre-existing matter & energy. Therefore, Craig's first premise is unsound & he'll need to refute the following: "Anything that doesn't exist can't be caused to begin existing"
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"Everything we observe coming into existence is merely a re-shuffle of pre-existing matter & energy."
This is, of course, a metaphysical assumption.
Would you care to provide empirical evidence for this? Alternatively, provide a rational explanation as to how a physical body pervasively subject to cause and effect, such as the physical universe, can also be simultaneously independent of cause and effect by being a primary cause unto its own existence?
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell "This is, of course, a metaphysical assumption."
It's based on deduction which is exactly what Craig's first premise is, fallaciously, based on. Therefore, by expressing doubt towards my contention you are conceding that Craig’s work is inferior
"Alternatively, provide a rational explanation etc..."
I don't know, I’m not claiming to & I don't need to. And it is you who is now assuming that intuitive concepts like linear time & causality apply to the premival quantum universe
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"I don't know, I’m not claiming to & I don't need to"
I'm asking for your deductive argument for an infinitely existing universe. My statement regarding determinism is the primary formal logical challenge such an argument faces, so I'm afraid you will also need to address this problem if you are to defend your assertion.
I made no allusion to linear time as far as I'm aware. The principle of universal determinism, a logical axiom, doesn't need to be defended, at least for now.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell "I'm asking for your deductive argument for an infinitely existing universe."
You're once again mistaken. I'm not claiming to know the absolute nature of reality or how long it has existed. You're request, again, assumes that time is applicable prior to where Einsteinian physics ceases to apply. Hawking tells us, in his latest book, that the nature of time would be unrecognizable and behave like another dimension of space prior to 10-43 seconds "before" the big bang.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"You're [sic] request, again, assumes that time is applicable prior to where Einsteinian physics ceases to apply."
Interesting straw man, though I appreciate how you could have come to this misunderstanding. An infinitely existing universe is actually one that is foundationally independent of time. My request therefore makes no allusion regarding the nature of time at any point within the existence of said universe.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumGh0st
"I'm not claiming to know the absolute nature of reality or how long it has existed."
Did you, or did you not make these assertions earlier? :
"Everything we observe coming into existence is merely a re-shuffle of pre-existing matter & energy. ... It's based on deduction"
Perhaps you'd like to explain how these arguments do not entail an infinitely existing universe?
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell You seem to be committing a classic Craig trick. A non-theist needs only doubt the validity of theistic arguments to establish his position in the same way that a non-astrologer needs only to doubt astrology to establish her position. Nothing to do with causality, cosmology or philosophy gets Craig anywhere close to his Jewish war-god of Israel. You're scrutinizing arguments that I’m not making & are unable to support Craig & his weightless drivel. I see no reason to continue this.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st "I see no reason to continue this."
Seeing the spanking youre taking who'd blame you. haha
Calenfeyn41 4 months ago
@JCrownwell If there's one cognitive faculty that has failed us time & again throughout history it is human intuition. Nobody could've imagined that space-time dilation, quantum uncertainty or germ theory like they could the man made myths that once governed reality. Each century that has passed has seen Gods demoted to take more passive roles, & to inhabit more distant places, in the universe. Craig's best weapon is intuition & before the big bang is just the latest hiding place for his god.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"failed us time & again throughout history it is human intuition"
The logical axioms are neurobiologically intuitive.
If you wish to abandon formal logic, you may as well abandon the scientific methodology which pervasively presupposes logic. Moreover, if you wish to embrace quantum non-determinism at superficial face value (ignoring its ontological implications) you may as well as abandon the scientific method by way of abandonment of the principle of universal determinism.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell Again, I’m not abandoning anything or embracing any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. When I say "intuition" I'm merely referring to how people are predisposed to interpret reality in a certain way; that is all. And nature herself, largely, is just not intuitive.
You seem desperate to pin me to a bull’s-eye but I’m not even on the firing range. My only duty is to point out that Craig is missing his target by a long way.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"You seem desperate to pin me to a bull’s-eye but I’m not even on the firing range."
If walking goal posts could talk, they'd talk just like you. ;) There's a very good reason why I've made a record of this conversation for educational purposes. Hint: it's not your aptitude at debate.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"When I say "intuition" I'm merely referring to how people are predisposed to interpret reality in a certain way"
Sorry, but this definition of intuition still entails logic and the other neurobiological axioms.
Moreover, as far as I understand from his defence of KCA premise one, Craig's definition of intuition also refers to logical foundations as a basis by which to formulate rational arguments and interpret phenomenal observations.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell And if talking goal posts could sprint, they'd look like the history of religious apologists. My only position is that Craig's claims are unjustified, and I’m right.
"Hint: it's not your aptitude at debate."
Until Craig (or his equivalent) can provide anything of substance, doubt is reasonable, by default, & thus the debate remains tilted in my favour.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st It's clear you're a rank amateur of maybe average intelligence at best. Do you really think youre in any position to be commenting on Craig's debate skills. If a moment ago you believed that logic and mathematics axioms can be proven using evidence, someone of your capacity would get taken apart by Craig within minutes
Calenfeyn41 4 months ago
@Calenfeyn41 "you're a rank amateur" - Smart enough to see through Craig's theatrical claptrap.
"in any position to be commenting on Craig's debate skills" – Yes, Craig is only impressive to those, already, convinced that his god exists. To sceptics, he is just a talented illusionist.
"If a moment ago you believed that logic and mathematics axioms can be proven" - I'm glad you said "if"
"would get taken apart by Craig" - Craig's needs to be focused on proving his Jewish-battle-God.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
It's been a very entertaining discussion on many levels. Have a good night. :)
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@QuantumGh0st
"Each century that has passed has seen Gods demoted"
The scientific revolution began long before naturalism was subsumed under theism as a doctrine of secondary causes, then as a primary foundational position.
It wasn't the uptake of naturalism that led to the increasing rate of progress in science, but numerous other developments (a formalised educational and communications infrastructure, an exponentially increasing population) contingent upon prior scientific advances.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
@JCrownwell We could also talk about why the big bang does not resemble a beginning in the way Craig would like it to, why the actual event of a beginning is not so straight forward when you explore the universe prior to inflation, and a million other things. William Lane Craig is an awesome illusionist: He makes it seem like he is presenting solid facts & is no doubt impressive to the untrained ear. Unfortunately, people like myself & others much smarter can see straight through the smoke.
QuantumGh0st 4 months ago
Love the ending!!
99paulmccartney 5 months ago
Im actually pretty excited by the debate Craig is going to have against Stpehen law!
he is a great philosopher as well as craig and he has debated Tzortis (who uses almost the same arguments that criag) and he won!
retonete 5 months ago
LOL
KeithTruth 5 months ago
Darwin said," If evolutio is not proved a 100 years after my death", Then it is not true.
MrFlatroofer 5 months ago
This is the most awesome soundtrack - It makes apologists and philosophers look like gladiators or something!
muel0341 5 months ago
@muel0341
Well, Gladiator is one of the tracks! ;-)
Birdieupon 5 months ago
Dawkins criticizes Craig for having a "odiously unctuous, smug and self satisfied tone of voice"?
Has Dick ever heard about People in glass houses?
TheSmithersy 5 months ago in playlist Liked
Awesome video!!
megaead69 5 months ago
Was at Dawkins’s site and searched Craig. Tons of insults and name-calling plus pseudophilosophical analyses of why Dawkins can’t stoop so low as to debate a Craig who doesn’t understand reality. There’s nothing rational you can say that they’ll accept. They cheer each other on as to how great a mind Dawkins is. This site, a “clear-thinking oasis,” has become an isolated mud puddle of raving lunatics who can’t stand logic. Thanks to Dr. Craig they're showing their true anti-intellectualism
netokor 5 months ago 4
@netokor
Very true. Dawkins' website is a pretentious and self-delusional fan club. It's a therapy centre for angry atheists masquerading as a seminar for the reasoning elite. The insults thrown at Dr Craig (including by Dawkins himself) completely outweigh any critique of his arguments. In fact, the page with videos of Craig's responses to the God Delusion barely have any comments at all compared to the ad hominem brigade on other threads.
Birdieupon 5 months ago 7
@Birdieupon I can't thank you enough for this video. I can't wait to see the empty Dawkins chair and the atheist panel responding to Craig's arguments against those of a Dawkins who can't stand on his own anymore.
netokor 5 months ago
@Birdieupon "Dawkins' website is a pretentious and self-delusional fan club."
Funny you should say that. I have similar thoughts on the "drcraigvideos" page.
japonizieify 4 months ago
Comment removed
hazydavey 5 months ago
@netokor
How do these "raving" Dawkins fans account for the fact that Dawkins HAS debated Craig? How do you?
There's a certain irony about these videos and comments here - whining about name-calling when the ONLY criticisms of Dawkins are of a personal nature - "he's arrogant" "He's a coward" "He's clueless" "He's got an agenda!"
It's especially ironic given that Craig himself routinely slanders Dawkins. And then his fans whine when such tactics are not well-received.
Funny stuff.
hazydavey 5 months ago
WILLIAM CRAIG! WILLIAM CRAIG! WILLIAM CRAIG! WILLIAM CRAIG! :DDDD
TheBee7943 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Check out what Dawkins has to say at 4:55 of the following video, what a hypocrite.
youtube.com/watch?v=7ChUbiynhf0
Galmozzi99 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Ah, so it does expand for a reason. Not that it helps the case. Pressure is indicative of force and force needs a cuase. And beside that it also indicates that this singularity has boundries. It is not endless because it can expand so it had to have been a specific size to begin with or there is no sense in any kind of expansion or mention of pressure. So here we are back at square one, there had to be a point at which this expansion began.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Your explanation is still begging the question. In lamens terms "The singularity expands because that's just what it does." That's hardly an explanation. this expansion is an uncuased event; something that just "happened because it happened." I think they call that special pleading.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Gravity doesn't "do" anything. It is the name we gave the result of a specific cuase. An entity which has not been cuased cannot "do" anything if not compelled. If it exists on its own (and the first cuase would have to) then it cannot compell itself (i.e. will itself) to produce anything. That would be an uncuased event which is not possible. If this singularity is an uncuased entity and not an uncuased event then it cuased the first event. It canot have done this without will.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
The closest you can get would be two self-existent things. This can roughly be called dualism and is probably the most logical position when looking only at the bare physical facts. An uncaused cause that is not rational can do nothing because it has no will. Even with the universe emerging from a singularity, something caused this singularity. Something caused it to produce what is now the universe. If it existed on it's own, it would be the only thing that existed.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree This is understandable, but it's question begging. Narrowing the beginning to the universe ot smaller and smaller intervals of time does not solve the logical problem of infinite regression. The idea of a singularity works well theologically (the place where time touches eternity should not have a measurable beginning) but it cannot be self-existent. Self existent irrational thing cannot change because that change must be caused and an event cannot cause itself. cont...
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
If only Dr. Craig were defending the claim that dinosaurs walked with men, and if his argument in favor of God were "a burning in my breast", and if he wore his hair in a mullet and spoke with an Appalachian accent, then he would find no lack of debaters in England.
LaszloBencze 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EAF
Fred Hoyle's 'Steady State' Universe? :)
I understand why you're trying desperately to find an alternative to a first cause, but hypothetical numbers do not substitute for the reality of the Physical world. Sadly, Einstein's calculations concerning a singularity are known to be badly flawed, an infinity is nothing more than a purely theoretical concept -a la, perpetual motion machines - nice in theory, but that's where it ends.
Infinities are not a reasonable solution for the Physical world
DastardlyDawkins 5 months ago
@EAF
Fred Hoyle's 'Steady State' Universe? :)
I understand why you're trying desperately to find an alternative to a first cause, but hypothetical numbers do not substitute for the reality of the Physical world. Sadly, Einstein's calculations concerning a singularity are known to be badly flawed, an infinity is nothing more than a purely theoretical concept -a la, perpetual motion machines - nice in theory, but that's where it ends.
Infinities are not a reasonable solution for the Physical world
DastardlyDawkins 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree
Maths is all well and dandy, but there's no such thing as an infinity.....at least, not in the real world.
DastardlyDawkins 5 months ago
3. I've never fallen into one but I know that black holes (in theory at least) are formed, which means they were once something (more likely many things) other than a black hole. That means they are caused, which makes them a very bad example if you're trying to find an example of something finite with no beginning.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EqualAndFree That argument has 3 problems:
1. Your number series has a beginning so it does nothing for our present purpose. I'm saying it's not possible to have an endless number of PAST events. We don't know what the future holds.
2. Your example works mathematically, but so does infinity. However ACTUAL infinates are not possible so there is no reason to believe your example corresponds to anything in the real world even if it works mathe mathematically.
(cont)
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree That argument has 3 problems:
1. Your number series has a beginning so it does nothing for our present purpose. I'm saying it's not possible to have an endless number of PAST events. We don't know what the future holds.
2. Your example works mathematically, but so does infinity. However ACTUAL infinates are not possible so there is no reason to believe your example corresponds to anything in the real world even if it works mathe mathematically.
(cont)
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree If there is no "before" the universe then that would mean the universe is eternal. If that is the case then you have an infinite number of events preceding the present because we already see that the universe is constantly changing. These changes had to have started somewhere. There had to have been a first cause and physical causes require a physical universe. How can the first cause have been physical if it caused physical cases. The idea is only possible in words, and barely.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No one wants to deal with stupid.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Physical causes before the physical universe? This is just as hypothetical as anything supernatural and less likely.
AnonymousProgramer 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Before the universe in he subset, there were no matter constraints, because there was no matter. Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
WLC molests children, who would talk to him?
WONDERKITTY007 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree
"A classic one is arguing that the Universe can't just come from Nothing - then later claiming that God creates the Universe from Nothing."
Then you've clearly not cared to even understand the argument.
Craig talks about CAUSES! If something popped into being UNCAUSED out of nothing. If God is the cause then obviously the universe isn't appearing from nothing... because God is there to produce it!
Sheesh, atheists please at least TRY!
Birdieupon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EqualAndFree "A classic one is arguing that the Universe can't just come from Nothing - then later claiming that God creates the Universe from Nothing. You can't have it both ways - and neither claim is empirically validatable." - Please tell me you are joking
bushfingers 5 months ago
The gutlessness of Dawkins and others has been exposed
bushfingers 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Give specific examples
bushfingers 5 months ago
My favoeret part is were it brings up Dawkins wanting to debat about fairys after talking about being an inttectual, hahahahaha
JessaMesss 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JessaMesss "My favoeret part is were it brings up Dawkins wanting to debat about fairys after talking about being an inttectual, hahahahaha"
I believe that was AC Grayling